update_docs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds the valuable incremental-sync rule (only changed last-modified timestamps), but omits what happens to locally stored articles that were removed upstream, whether local edits are overwritten, and how long or how costly the fetch is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the default-vs-force contrast immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two optional parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and call correctly. The remaining gap is downstream effects on the local corpus, which matters for a mutation tool but is a modest omission given the annotation coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description does reinforce the meaning of force=true as a full refetch. It adds no information about the limit parameter, but the schema already explains that one adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — 'Refresh the documentation corpus from formidableforms.com' — which clearly separates this ingest/sync tool from the read-oriented siblings (search_docs, read_doc, list_docs). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the write/refresh nature is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the default incremental behavior and the condition that overrides it ('unless force=true'), which is useful decision guidance for the force flag. However, it never says when an agent should invoke a refresh at all versus just reading existing docs, nor any prerequisite such as needing a stale corpus first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.